My very own brown paper bag release...
I have just uploaded patch release 4 from the automake-1.4 maintenance
branch. This time configure.ac from Autoconf-2.50 is supported properly.
The tarball is available now from:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/automake/automake-1.4-p4.tar.gz
Or as a a d
Yet another interruption to your regularly scheduled posts with a brief news
flash:
I am proud to present patch release 3 from the automake-1.4 maintenance
branch. The main purpose of this release is to add better compatibility with
Autoconf-2.50. It is available now from:
ftp://ftp
Once again, we interrupt your regularly scheduled posts with another news
flash:
I am proud to present patch release 2 from the automake-1.4 maintenance
branch. The main purpose of this release is to fix some irritating but small
bugs that remained in patch release 1. It is available now fro
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 11:20:32AM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Allan" == Allan Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Allan> So whatever happened to numeric point releases?
> Allan> "1.5 will do that"
> Allan> "this is release 1.4.3, automake-1.4.3"
>
> In gnits there are only two numbers.
Random thoughts on version numbers...
> to do this with automake since I've been saying for a long time "1.5
> will do this", "1.5 will do that". Bleah, my bad.
> Agreed. Buuut... 1.4a-p1 seems wrong if HEAD is at 1.4c. Worse, releasing
> 1.4b-p1 sounds like it is related to 1.4b. I still d
> "Allan" == Allan Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Allan> So whatever happened to numeric point releases?
Allan> "1.5 will do that"
Allan> "this is release 1.4.3, automake-1.4.3"
In gnits there are only two numbers. The third one, if it exists,
indicates an alpha release. That is the pro
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> So CVS will become 1.5a, and maybe you'll release 1.5b and
Gary> change CVS to 1.5c, and in the mean while you need a patch for
Gary> the original 1.5, so you call that 1.6 (even though it is
Gary> ``worse'' than 1.5a) and make chan
> As I recall, a long time ago the Gnits group decided that we simply
> wouldn't support more than 2 release numbers. If the current release
> is 1.4, then the next one is 1.5. Unfortunately for us, I didn't want
> to do this with automake since I've been saying for a long time "1.5
> will do th
On Sunday 20 May 2001 6:11 am, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Gary> But it does raise the general problem of how to differentiate
> Gary> between alpha releases and full releases when using a fork
> Gary> identifier.
>
> I think `1.5a-myversion'
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> But it does raise the general problem of how to differentiate
Gary> between alpha releases and full releases when using a fork
Gary> identifier.
I think `1.5a-myversion' is an alpha version according to the rules.
As I recall, a l
On Thursday 10 May 2001 7:17 pm, you wrote:
> Gary> Except 1.4-p1a isn't an alpha release number under your new
> Gary> versioning rules. Are you sure that is okay?
>
> Yeah, it's fine.
Okay. Done.
But it does raise the general problem of how to differentiate between alpha
releases and full
We interrupt your regularly scheduled posts with an important news flash:
I am proud to present patch release 1 from the automake-1.4 maintenance
branch. The main purpose of this release is to have a stable automake which
is compatible with the latest stable libtool. It is available now from:
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> I noticed after uploading that you haven't made diffs or xdeltas
Gary> for your other releases. I can delete the new diff and xdelta
Gary> if you like.
You can leave them. Historically automake releases have been
characterized by
On Tuesday 08 May 2001 11:39 pm, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Gary> Let me know if you are happy with the results (or if there are
> Gary> any other obvious fixes you would prefer to apply first) and I
> Gary> will roll up the release and put i
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> Let me know if you are happy with the results (or if there are
Gary> any other obvious fixes you would prefer to apply first) and I
Gary> will roll up the release and put it up on ftp.gnu.org.
It looks good to me.
There is a releas
Hi.
On Monday 07 May 2001 12:38 am, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Gary> I guess that it might be advantageous to have a call for
> Gary> bugfixes email incase there are any other pet bugfixes people
> Gary> might like backported to a stable rel
Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I became confused when I found an empty automake project on savannah.
> We probably ought tp remove it from there I guess...
I was confused by that too when I started looking at Savannah, but after
looking a bit closer, it appeared that someone had si
On Monday 07 May 2001 6:43 pm, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Gary> I notice that you haven't yet migrated the project to
> Gary> savannah... is that a deliberate choice, or simply a lack of
> Gary> time? I'd be happy to facilitate the migration if you like.
>
> Automake has never been hosted at GNU. Its
Gary> I notice that you haven't yet migrated the project to
Gary> savannah... is that a deliberate choice, or simply a lack of
Gary> time? I'd be happy to facilitate the migration if you like.
Automake has never been hosted at GNU. Its entire public life has
been at sources.redhat.com. I have
On Monday 07 May 2001 12:38 am, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Gary> I guess that it might be advantageous to have a call for
> Gary> bugfixes email incase there are any other pet bugfixes people
> Gary> might like backported to a stable release
On Monday 07 May 2001 1:33 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 6, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > `1.4.1' is an alpha release by our rules.
>
> I thought only releases ending in letters were alpha.
>
> There's always 1.4p1.
People seem relatively happy with libtool's maj.min.pat
On May 6, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> `1.4.1' is an alpha release by our rules.
I thought only releases ending in letters were alpha.
There's always 1.4p1.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliv
> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gary> Would you be agreeable to granting me (at least temporary) CVS
Gary> write access so that I can do this?
Sure. I've had several requests for this recently.
One question is what to name the release. This is more of a problem
than
Hi Tom,
If I am right in my assumption that the next stable release of Automake is
still several months away, I'd like to roll up and release a maintenance
release branched off automake-1.4 for compatibility with libtool-1.4.
Would you be agreeable to granting me (at least temporary) CVS writ
24 matches
Mail list logo
